That's a nice one! Did you shoot at 200 this time?
Would be helpful to some of us if you could share a pic of the negative if it's not too much of work.
Pentax 6x7, S-M-C Takumar 6x7 105mm f/2.4, Ilford XP2 Super (expired 2017), developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:49 for 10 minutes.
That last shot is outstanding! Bravo!I've been, inexcusably, away from film (all cameras actually) for eleven months. But after a long saga involving three donors and an eventual bone marrow transplant I was finally discharged home a couple of days ago. I had got to the point of feeling perfectly comfortable with XP2 Super exposed at 25 - 1600 with varying development times in HC-110 (there are examples in the link in the signature). I had tried a few times with Diafine, but there was more grain than I liked when it was exposed at ISO 400, so I tried 200 and got much better results (as earlier in this thread). Finding myself home and with camera and film, I decided to jump back in and see if I could automate it a little. I have a home-made motorized base that will take a Rondinax 35u or a Rondinax 60, and it makes my life a lot easier. I've often felt Diafine was prone to increased grain with too much agitation, but it turns out that XP2 @ 200 loves continuous agitation! These are all from an F6, 85.1.4, SB600, and Nikon 9000 scans. My appearance has changed after the transplant, and the intense process and uncertainty it still engenders is written all over me, so they may not be conventional portraits. Never mind that. Judge the film and development. A couple are cropped square.
I'm not unhappy with the results.
In the beginning, there was XP1. And Ilford saw that it was good.
Over time, it was seen that XP1 could be improved, and there was XP2; like unto XP1 it was, but better.
Then in the fullness of time, there was XP2 Super, which was all that XP2 had been, and more. And once again, it was good.
And so it is until the present day.
@Old Gregg, it's a rock at Vargas Plateau, a regional park here in the Bay Area. No idea if it has a name or not...@dourbalistar was that the Elephant rock in the previous picture?
@Old Gregg, interesting, I've ever been there before. Don't want to veer too far off topic, but do you know if Elephant Rock is on private property? By the way, the boulders at Vargas are much smaller, probably no larger than 6-8 feet tall.@dourbalistar I see. I was referring to this place.
Another from the same roll...
Pentax 6x7, S-M-C Takumar 6x7 105mm f/2.4, Ilford XP2 Super (expired 2017), developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:49 for 10 minutes.
Thank you, @eurekaiv. I rated it at box speed, but as I noted in Post #142 upthread, most of the roll turned out very thin. Haven't tried again yet since that first experiment (for me), but I'd probably add one stop of exposure next time, and maybe bracket some using 135 instead of 120 film.Fantastic results... what ISO did you rate this?
Good luck, and hope you can share some results! @drmoss_ca's article was very helpful to me:I have 100' of this I've been waiting to use and a 200 speed film would be nice to have on hand. I'll try that soon and see how I get on. Thanks for the reply.
in general my negs were thin and it doesn't look any better than HP5+ grain-wise to me.
This particular photo is more indicative of most of the roll.
https://flic.kr/p/2m2sYfR
The highlights in this pic too appear to be blown out and the overall noise is in the pic is quite horrible, I don't know if it is grain or scanner noise. If you could share the pic of the negative, it will be helpful to understand what exactly happened.
Always a good idea to bracket when you are trying a film-developer combination for the first time and especially so with expired film. Next time you may want to try EI 100 and 50. In my experience, this film works best at EI 150 but I use relatively fresh film. Grain is quite fine and unlike anything seen in your pics which I suspect is scanner noise.
@eurekaiv hey sorry I missed the B&W chemicals part, TBH that explains everything.
The scanner has nothing to do with noise, it reads what you give him. You had one or more faulty models, so you can't judge this scanner.Yes it is. So much so that it's almost funny to read you say it. I've had this scanner and it's awful for noise, most evident in the shadows and somewhat coarser-looking B&W grain. Add to that the 10+ year old film stock and I honestly don't understand why you even felt the need to comment, as you haven't yet had a chance to properly evaluate this film.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?